Frank commentary from an unretired call girl

Honored in the Breach

But to my mind, though I am native here
And to the manner born, it is a custom
More honored in the breach than the observance. – William Shakespeare, Hamlet (I, iv)

In the United States, today is Election Day. We’ve been putting up with partisan idiocy for over a year now, and for the past few months it’s become intolerable: normal election years are bad enough, but presidential election years are a kind of evil circus which turns even normal people who pay too much attention to it into raving lunatics. And the worst part of it? Despite the mindless glorification of their own candidate and equally-mindless vilification of the other, the modern US presidential elections have about as much impact on the future of the country as choosing a new color of paint for one’s house. Don’t believe me? Then please explain why every president going back to Reagan, no matter what his campaign rhetoric, mostly continued the policies of his predecessor once he got in the White House. My husband says he imagines that on the evening of inauguration day, the new president goes into the Oval Office alone and meets with a mysterious old man in a gray suit who puts a binder on his desk and explains for the next six hours or so exactly how things are going to be.

While I don’t necessarily believe that’s literally true, it is correct in principle because this country is not run by elected officials, but by an entrenched bureaucracy. The “progressive” philosophy of the late 19th century held that ordinary people could not be trusted to run our own lives; instead, we should be governed by “experts” who would determine what was best for us. As this mentality took hold over the next few decades, burgeoning federal and state bureaucracies insinuated or forced their way into areas of life which had throughout human history been considered private and personal. Since the people could not be trusted to choose those who would run these rapidly-multiplying bureaus (and by the 1930s there were far too many of them to elect anyhow), they were hired and progressed upward by supposed “merit”, much like the military. And like the military, they stayed in place when the elected officials changed. As the federal government metastasized after World War II, the number, reach and power of these positions dramatically increased; then, as anti-discrimination and other employee protection laws multiplied, the career bureaucrats in those positions became virtually impossible to fire. The final tipping point came sometime during the Reagan administration, not because of anything he did but simply as the end result of the interactions of layer upon layer of contradictory, vague, ill-considered legislation, regulation, guidelines and official procedures. Sometime in the 1980s, the unelected bureaucracy assumed the real power in Washington, not through a conscious act but merely because neither ruling party is willing (nor probably even able) to take the drastic steps necessary to shut it down, chop it into pieces and destroy every last cell of it with fire so as to prevent its regeneration. It will continue to grow until it collapses of its own weight or consumes all available resources, at which point it will perish and take the current system of government with it.

This is the main reason I don’t vote. In a republic, the electorate chooses representatives to act on its behalf; by participating in the system, each voter agrees to abide by the results of the process and tacitly acknowledges that the leaders so elected (and by extension the underlings they appoint and the bureaucrats those underlings hire, including police) have legitimate authority over them. People love to say, “if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain,” but this is completely backwards: it is the voters who have no right to complain, because by signing on to this devil’s bargain they agree to be bound by it. Katherine Mangu-Ward of Reason explained it this way:

…In his 1851 book Social Statics, the English radical Herbert Spencer neatly describes the rhetorical jujitsu surrounding voting, consent, and complaint, then demolishes the argument. Say a man votes and his candidate wins. The voter is then “understood to have assented” to the acts of his representative. But what if he voted for the other guy? Well, then, the argument goes, “by taking part in such an election, he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision of the majority.” And what if he abstained? “Why then he cannot justly complain…seeing that he made no protest…Curiously enough, it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted—whether he said yes, whether he said no, or whether he remained neuter! A rather awkward doctrine this.” Indeed.

The chance of any candidate whose views come within 46 parsecs of mine being nominated to the presidency by either faction of the duopoly is so close to zero as to be mathematically indistinguishable from it, and the chance of a third-party candidate being elected in our current system isn’t much higher. Furthermore, even if such a candidate were to be elected to the presidency, the Republicrats wouldn’t allow him to accomplish anything. My vote is therefore not merely worthless, but assigned a negative value; it is worth more to me uncast, as a protest against the current system and as a symbolic rejection of the “authorities” produced by that system. For me, voting has become a custom more honored in the breach than the observance.

If you vote, you have no right to complain about the system so produced. I have more influence on the system through my amplified voice via this blog than I could ever have with one vote out of 300,000,000 for one of two approved candidates set forth by the fascist system. No, thanks.

The fallacy in this argument is in the very first line. As a citizen I explicitly reserve the right to participate–whether by voting or not, by direct political action, or by necessary means of dissent–with any government elected.

“If you vote, you have no right to complain about the system so produced.”

This is a baseless assumption. You have the right, and the ability, and the freedom, to complain, demonstrate or work against, anything in the system that you feel needs or deserves your attention. For instance, voting would in no way affect your ability to write your blog, or affect its contents, etc.

I’m surprised at you. You’re normally a very clear thinker; here it seems you’ve been taken in by others telling you what you can and can’t do… in a range of actions where they literally have zero control over you.

Frankly, the very idea that a candidate will perfectly represent one’s every view is unlikely at best; and to remain silent on issue A because “your” candidate agrees with you on issue B is the poorest civic behavior.

That isn’t the point. Voting is a tacit agreement to abide by the result; I refuse to make such an agreement. NO candidate, even if he is elected by 99.99% of the popular vote, has legitimate authority over me because I did not sign on to the contract which gave him power. He can of course use his thugs to enforce his whims on me, but so can any criminal or control freak.

No, Maggie, it is not. All it is, and I mean all it is, is a method to select (or select against) a civil servant — which can, and often does, have far-reaching consequences. The rest is purest propaganda, and you do yourself a disservice by buying into it. That includes the idea of “signing a contract for power” (paraphrasing.) That’s not what a vote is. Read a ballot when you get time; there’s not a word that even *suggests* such a thing.

Do you believe that sexual commerce is bad, just because some (lots of) people say so? I don’t think you do for a minute (nor do I.) So why do you think you have made a “tacit agreement to abide by the result when in fact the only factor that leans that way is an unofficial and ethically bewildered old wive’s tale? Why do you think you’ve agreed to a contract when there is no such contract?

I voted, and I assure you, I don’t abide by anything in particular; I’m probably a good deal more radical than you are. I certainly have not agreed to any contract. I’m just an anonymous mouse, pushing on the huge wheel with a bunch of other mice. When I’m done with that, I go back to my mousie life, busily ankle-biting, nothing else changed, because I don’t buy into anyone else defining my actions, obligations or stances by the fact that I voted.

When someone tells you that you’ve agreed to something that in fact, you have not, why don’t you just laugh at them instead of meekly going “ok”? I submit to you that you have sipped at the koolaid, probably without even realizing it. Spit that shit out.

I believe in the social contract theory; a government derives its right to govern by the consent of the governed. And since I do not consent, I won’t waste my time and money participating in their little rituals.

The very act of voting voids the ridiculous social contract kool-aid: For anyone who votes for the loser, they specifically (not implicitly, but actually) didn’t consent to what they got, and were actively trying to get something else. There are myriad issues the government imposes via power (not consent) that I disagree with; some, like you, I simply ignore, others I don’t. None of it stops me from wanting to see sick people get healthcare. Very sorry that it stops you.

The only social contract that exists is the one you choose to put into practice. The rest is all imposed externally upon the gullible, and no one else.

We will agree to disagree on this. I will never allow my actions to be dictated by the kool-aid. I do what I believe to be right, rather than what I am told.

Hmm. No. I would submit to you that the “social contract” idea is externally imposed. At least, if you’re using the term as I understand it; the idea that you are either bound only by your own power and conscience, or, you consent to be governed. That, essentially, is the distillation of the 17th century social contract that most people are referring to when they bring it up.

The idea that not accepting the social contract renders you morally or ethically unable to participate in any way presents a false dichotomy that is as false as the claim that there you can either love me, or hate me — completely ignoring the fact that you can just be my friend, you can both love me and hate me, you can simply not care, there are degrees of all these, etc.

I truly do recognize that you can come to different conclusions; however, I also recognize that you can be mistaken, just like the rest of us. I engaged because I thought so; I still think so.

Perhaps a metaphor might be of service:

Here we have a bunch of other people, trying to roll a wagon wheel over your hand, or perhaps the hands of others. Or both. This will damage any hands it catches. You stand apart and won’t push back — because you subscribe to the idea that you don’t consent to wagon rolling.You can see others trying to push back, so you know where, and how, to push; but you won’t do it.

If you truly contend that you are bound only by your own power and conscience — that you are disengaged from any social contract — then you can push back no matter what the precepts behind those pushing the wagon might be.

Likewise, you can vote no matter what terrifically bad ideas those on the other side of the ballot may adhere to. The idea that you can’t push back because you don’t agree is you being limited by the other party’s ideas — not you, choosing to exercise your power and conscience.

The proof of this is that if you consider preventing the wagon wheel from running over hands absent the idea of whether the wagon is legitimate or not, then it is obvious that the correct thing to do is help. Especially when, as in the case of both the metaphor and voting, the act costs you nothing or near nothing; only compassion.

As illuminant: I refer to the social contract as “kool aid” because it isn’t a valid contract; there is no signed document, there isn’t a verbal one either, and in fact, most people don’t even understand the idea, and have not consented.

Not because “I can’t participate” an idea you adopt, but because the idea itself is an attempt to subvert the individual by the state. When there’s only one game, as dictated by the powerful, and you don’t like the game and decline to play, no obligation arises for you to recuse yourself from all in-game actions.

Quite the contrary. If you consider the game invalid, then the only rules are the ones you make yourself. Consequently, if you refuse to help those in need of assistance from state malfeasance, the state is dictating your actions. Not you.

Considering the strong pushback against government that is your blog, I think you already know this, deep down. The Internet is a mechanism created by government funding, subject to government regulation and oversight. Yet you consent to use it to push back. The vote is little different — both can make a difference — yet you refuse to utilize it.

This is why I don’t vote and why no argument could move me to vote: If you reject the legitimacy of the government itself, it is immoral to participate in it, including by voting. Voting would be no more than helping to decide who will be the next mafia boss. (Or whose legs the mafia will break.) It would make you an accomplice to the government’s evil.

Beg to differ. By voting you reserve the right to to criticize and, more importantly, influence the decision making process. I am a part of the problem and I am part of the solution. I accept that.

I enjoy your various postings and rants. However, by electing not to use your right to vote you have abrogated and thereby assigned your rights to others. You now have no rights. I, on the other hand, while retaining the slimmest of rights by going to the polls and casting my vote, have more than you. And that, Dear Maggie, is sad, indeed.

This basically captures my feelings on the whole thing. I put a bit more emphasis on not-voting for the statistical reasons cited by Mangu-Ward, but would be much more open to expressive voting for causes I believed in/supported if the system as a whole weren’t so morally despicable.

My sympathies with those in the US; your choice is between a guy who murders children and a guy who thinks the first guy probably hasn’t murdered enough children. :S

“your choice is between a guy who murders children and a guy who thinks the first guy probably hasn’t murdered enough children”

True enough. And there’s the drug war awfulness, and the war on sexuality and teenagers, and the whole military-industrial complex “feed-me” problem, and the crushing of the constitution, and so on. All bad things. All likely to continue unabated regardless of who was elected.

However, our choice was also between a man who wants to see 30 million or so people properly covered by healthcare, and one who thinks you’re entitled to the best healthcare you can afford; also between one who thinks our military is doing ok, and one who wanted to just throw another couple of trillion dollars (that we don’t have) at them; between one who genuinely seems to care for the people, and one who dismissed 47% of the country as of no interest to him. I could go on, but perhaps I’ve made my point.

Yes, it’s choice between two evils, but they are not identical, and hence one can have a positive, or at least, less negative, effect, by pushing for the candidate that does the least harm. That candidate, IMHO, won the election, and yes, I voted for him.

Once again, our sentiments are the same, Mrs. McNeill. I look forward to not voting today :). May those who exoerience euphoria voting on a munch head see the light once near death, painful as it may be.

Pretty much a spot on characterization of the way things are today in America (and probably most of the other Western “Democracies” as well).

But … I’m voting for one of the precise reasons that you state – that this leviathan government will eventually crash of it’s own weight once it’s consumed all the resources possible.

Why not crash it sooner rather than later? Why hand that off to our kids? We caused this by our support of big government – so shouldn’t we be the ones to pay for it?

That’s why I’m voting for Obama – the greater of two evils (but just barely). Either party will crash it – but no one spends money like a drunken sailor quite like Obama does!

My husband says he imagines that on the evening of inauguration day, the new president goes into the Oval Office alone and meets with a mysterious old man in a gray suit who puts a binder on his desk and explains for the next six hours or so exactly how things are going to be.

No – but he’s not far off. I worked at the White House for 3 years in the early 90’s. Right after he swears in – the new POTUS gets briefings … the key ones that are immediate are his responsibilities concerning the nuke “suitcase” and codes and the other is his briefing from NSA.

Pay attention to this – because it reveals a problem with our Democracy …

Rumor was, that when Reagan came out of his NSA briefing he was “White as a Sheet”. He learned shit in there that he did not know previously. ALL of what he learned influenced his decisions wrt foreign policy … but how much of it was accurate?

If you assume that it was all accurate – then you have to give the guy some leeway when he does things that mystify you. There are reasons he can’t tell you why he’s doing certain things.

But the questions remain about whether or not that information was accurate, and questions about his judgement and actions (based on the information) exist also.

It’s a moving target – and voters don’t have the full picture of the spectrum of the problem. How can we possibly vote accurately? Our vote is merely a “guess”.

The arguments proposed by the Founding Fathers against a standing army apply even more to a standing civil service, but nobody realized that until it was far too late and most people STILL haven’t recognized it (or even deny it). A republic can only work if EVERY SINGLE OFFICIAL from the chief executive down to the lowliest clerk are all subject to regular replacement, limited to a very short term of office and drawn from more than just two political parties; I’d say three parties would be the absolute minimum necessary to produce a relatively just system, and five the absolute minimum for a reasonably representative one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE is probably the best solution to end “strategic voting”, and thus the two-party system. It would have to be changed in the states individually, rather than at the federal level, because the states generally get to decide how they select their federal candidates, IIRC.

I’ll agree as far as the ” bureaucrats” go – but they aren’t the majority of civil service workers.

I’ll also agree that a lot of civil service jobs can be contracted out – and should be. I’ll even go as far as saying there are entire agencies, like the BATF, which should be eliminated lock, stock and barrel immediately!

But … that still leaves a cadre of people that are necessary for the efficient function of government and for the survival of the nation …

I am a “practical” libertarian. I know a lot of libertarians believe they can simply ignore the world while we happily live out our lives here in America with little or no defense – but I assure you, it’s a fantasy and that’s why most people in the U.S. don’t support the libertarian agenda, because of this “hard core” insistence that somehow patriotism and survival of a nation are bad things – or things that should be ignored. It’s as crazy to me why we attach ourselves to that kind of ignorance – it’s basically the same as Conservatism attaching itself to social issues.

Now, once you get “back” to the more mainstream and practical notion of national survival – then you can look at the people we need to keep in civil service. People like …

1. Diplomats and their staffs.
2. Intelligence
3. SOME R&D agencies

I could list more … but let give you an example … it was PROBABLY a bunch of civil servants who coordinated the writing of the STUXNET code which set back Iranian nuclear research. Yeah, I know – a lot of people don’t care if the “Supreme Leader” has a nuke. LMFAO – they’re the same people who would FREEEEEK out if Pat Robertson were close to getting a nuke – so the double standard is pretty evident. In any case – if we can disable a nuke program using a virus made by civil servants – that’s a lot better than sending our kids over there to die in war once the Iranians have one and they’ve shut down the SoH.

I’m one of these “civil servants” unfortunately. No, I don’t write virus code but I play an important role in putting “eyes and ears” in various parts of the world which give U.S. leaders accurate information on what’s happening globally. That’s important, because without accurate information American leaders MAY make stupid conclusions such as … oh say … “There are WMD’s in Iraq”.

What I do costs the American taxpayers virtually nothing. I’d love to be able to be a “contractor” – but that’s just not a practical way to go and I won’t get into the details on that but, it can’t happen that way I assure you. And that goes for a lot of other “civil service” jobs.

I’ve only talked about civil service as it relates to foreign policy … I could go on to justify some of the domestic civil servants also but I’ve writing far too much on this already.

One of the things that pisses me off about American foreign policy is illustrated by the Iran situation.

Possibility 1) We don’t have sufficient reason to worry about them getting a nuke. Solution 1) Keep an eye just in case that changes but otherwise put our limited resources somewhere they might make a difference.

Possibility 2) We do have sufficient reason. Solution 2) Put a glowing pit where we believe Iran has their centrifuges. Make it clear that we’ll do the same wherever they try to do nuclear development–even if it’s a population center.

But what we’re doing is playing diplomatic patty-cake with people who are our avowed enemies and who have said, time and again, that they’ll harm us any way they can.

No self-respecting country should let the disapproval of other countries prevent it from taking whatever steps it deems necessary to its defense.

If America were to actually have a foreign policy, it would do wonders for its world-wide reputation. Even if that policy involved glowing pits. As it is, America’s “foreign policy” is merely a byproduct of whatever the current vote-getting scheme is. That has resulted in a wholly deserved contempt for America.

First, that’s a likely assessment of the current political reality. It may, or may not, continue to be likely in the future. Second, as a personal opinion, it is toothless — no one cares what you or I think.

One thing we all need to keep in mind is that it is a practical option in the sense that the weapons are deployed and ready to go at any moment. Actual use hinges on presidential will and nothing else whatsoever.

“Simply monitoring them would be 100% unacceptable.”

That is not an accurate assessment of the current political situation. Monitoring is acceptable to many, including, as we have already seen, the leadership of quite a few countries.

There is yet another option: Liberty. Other countries have no right to tell us what to do. We are a sovereign nation. The question of where we get the right to tell other countries what to do today remains unanswered. That we have the power to do so, and have been using it, is unquestionable. But we discard our own principles when we do so. The justifications we used to use (we don’t torture, we are free to travel, we have freedom of speech, we have privacy, we cannot be secretly dragged off to a gulag in the middle of the night, we don’t have a locked-in underclass) are long gone.

Once the principle is established that there are “good” government programs, whether they be welfare or the space program or anything else, the race is on for every Tom, Dick, and Harriet to persuade the electorate that their pet project deserves to be funded by the government. This just does not work. The only solution is to decide up front the essential functions of government and refuse to go beyond them.

Besides, without the overment’s (that was a typo, but I left it :)) space program, we’d likely already have real space flight….

As being part of the next generation I don’t exactly agree withyou on crashing it sooner rather than later. But many of my former friends have already begun to mimick their parents opinions. As soon as I can I’m out of our fair country.

Why don’t you agree? If you’re sure it’s going to collapse, and I am, then why wouldn’t you want to get the pain over as quickly as possible? I’m 50 years old, I don’t want to have to be involved in the sacrifice it’ll take to rebuild this nation when I’m 70.

The sooner it all crashes – the sooner we can all move on to USA Ver. 2.0 – and whatever that looks like. It could be fascism … or it could be something great. In any case – whatever it is will be up to US and not some schnob sipping martinis inside the D.C. beltway.

Also – good luck in another nation – I’m just not sure which one you’re going to pick since they all pretty much suck at this point.

I could have written that! (Except I’m 55, not 50.) BTW, I give it 10-20 years before Amerigeddon.

I’m still trying to decide if another nation (or seasteading) is a good way to go. But if for those who stay, it would be a good idea for those who see the crash coming to prepare for it. And I don’t mean survivalism, I mean having an organization in place to up the odds that at least one place in the former USA becomes something worth living in.

I was really just hoping we could last 5-12 years, so I’ll actually be old enough to do anything by myself legally. The people I associate with agree that at this point the UK is much better than America.

And please ignore all this old fart end-is-nigh BULLSHIT. People have been making these prophesies of doom for millennia. Literally thousands of years. I sometimes think language was invented so that bitter old cranks could say, “This world is so much worse than it used to be! And it’s all going to end soon!! And have you noticed the kids?! Disrespectful and they went and invented music, UG!!! The whole world’s going to… um… where is it going?”
{invents religion}
“This whole world’s going to HELL!!!!!”

I guarantee you, I guaran-fucking-tee you that in ten, fifteen, twenty years, the world will still be here, America will still be here, and old cranks* will still be insisting that it’s all going to come crashing down any day now, this time for sure.

And there’ll be some jerk pointing out that it’s always been the End Times.

* Some of them won’t be very old, but will just think that it’s kewl to act as if they were.

On partisan differentiation disorder – I think that there is at least a midichlorian of truth there.

On the Civil Service; prior to the Progressive Era, we had what was called the spoils system – winner take all and the bureaucracies were staffed with the cronies of those elected.

I think that that is actually the more responsive system. Give the bastard at the top full credit for all the idiocy that happens on his watch and then when you throw the bastard out, at least you get a whole new crop of bastards.

I think that the British comedy, “Yes, Minister” and it’s sequel “Yes, Prime Minister” are the best expose’ of this issue, and, being Brits, manage to be hilarious while doing it.

The majority of the civil service, though, is populated by democratic partisans. This is a result of several things:

1. The resistance of most rank and file republicans (as opposed to the Establishment Repubs) to finding their life’s work in government because of their ideological opposition to gov’t interference vs the embrace of such interference, ideologically speaking by the democrats. Now if we had a bureau of sexual repression, then this trend would be reversed, at least for that particular agency.

2. The long period after Herbert Hoover where the democrats controlled both houses – with rare exceptions, for nearly 60 years put their imprimatur upon the culture of the various bureaucracies.

3. The emplacement of Civil Service rules that supposedly restrain the formation of a quasi-spoils system by forbidding questions of political affiliation in job employment and advancement. Because of #2, above, the democrats are far more skilled than the republicans at asking the kinds of meta-questions that evade this political affiliation issue while still achieving the same results. Plus they have the networking and a larger pool of “appropriate” applicants built into the recruiting system due to #1 and #2 above.

Several libertarian/austrian/classical liberal types warned that an autocratic bureaucracy was the inevitable result of the kind of massive influx of gov’t control that we’ve seen since Herbert Hooover, most notably the warnings of Frederich von Hayek in “The Road to Serfdom” and, more generally, by Henry Hazlitt in various writings. Both wrote specifically of the impossiblity of keeping an increasingly technocratic government under the control of the governed.

Re: Krulac and crashing the system; I don’t know about that, but I think that if we do, we might find ourselves in the same position as Rome after Diocletian – bereft of power and under attack by the barbarians. We may not be able to avoid that outcome, but I hesitate to cheer it on as a “consummation Devoutly to be wished…”

Those two comedies were the best satirical shows on how the Civil Service works, there and here. I spent 10 months stationed at USCG 11th, with Federal Civil Servants occupying most floors not occupied by USCG. The first time I saw “Yes, Minister” I knew I wasn’t wrong in what I saw on Sansome St., SF. The only difference was that every Friday the whole building was near ghost town except the floors occupied by the USCG.

I really agree with your points #2 and #3. The Democratic party almost became the US version of PRI, and has certainly left its mark everywhere. It left the Republicans particularly inept at governance.

Thanks for this. I’m also a committed non-voter. The most insidious power of U.S. elections is to make people believe that this, the moment of our most abject submission to power, is actually the greatest expression of our freedom. In the process, elections make people nearly apoplectic with anger and bitterness and dogmatism. To vote in an election is to say that we are OK with this relentless manipulation by big money, political demagoguery and celebrity culture, and we want more.

In many circles, to admit that you don’t vote is to admit you are a heretic. Not voting for one of the duopoly is to forsake your duty as citizen and human. Is this really any better than the pressure to cast your ‘yes’ vote in an Eastern block People’s Congress? (Although, to be fair, unlike in Communist states, the powers that rule here are not just the bureaucracy, but a more complex coalition of bureaucracy, corporations, religion, and sophisticated political consensus-building/discourse control. All of which fortunately ends up a little bit leaky at the seams.)

“My husband says he imagines that on the evening of inauguration day, the new president goes into the Oval Office alone and meets with a mysterious old man in a gray suit who puts a binder on his desk and explains for the next six hours or so exactly how things are going to be.”

A friend of mine once said that he thinks it’s not a binder. Instead, the new President is shown footage of the Kennedy assassination from an angle that the general populace has never seen. Then the explanation of how things are going to be.

I do vote, it’s the only influence I have on the system these days. It’s miniscule, but it’s there. Also, being a pansexual woman, Romney is more like to interfere with my way of life then Obama, simply because of the pack of religious yahoos he will once debts to once elected.

None of these characters fit my political views.It would be impossible for the current USA situation to produce one. I don’t believe the “gray man” (Makes me think of John Major) is from the bureaucracy at all, I think he represents the positions of the capitalists, quite firmly.

I was raised old Labour. More Tony Benn than Tony Blair. More Red than Tory. (For those who don’t understand, Tony Benn was a somewhat radical Labour MP, now retired, who was a household hero when I was growing up.) He said:

“We are not just here to manage capitalism but to change society and to define its finer values.”

My values still fall to that side, which is why I consider myself a weird kind of socialist with an anarchist bent.

If there’s one good thing that will come out of today’s election – I think it will be a repudiation of labor unions. I respect your upbringing CC but, for me – the unions were nothing more than terrorists who employed the EXACT same tactics down here in the south as the old Ku Klux Klan did. That’s why we pretty much exterminated them here in the South. Yeah, we have some unions but we keep them in a cage like zoo animals so that everyone can see what they once looked like and pet them on their cute little heads – no one is forced to join a union down here anymore. They have no power here. Hey, it was their fault for resorting to violence and putting politics above the good of their members.

Wisconsin – watch that one. That’s a BLUE state that may roll to the red column today. In any case, it’s gonna be close. And the reason? The reason is the union invasion of that state to fight the austerity measures of that state’s governor has turned the people of Wisconsin OFF to union influence in anything.

Heh, heh. Fascism: more important to economic prosperity than capitalism. Because only Fascists work hard enough to grow their business to become big.
LOL, I’m guessing you were trying to complain about how many modern corporations practice “crony capitalism” rather the genuine kind. But whatever you trying to say, you didn’t say it that well.

I have an awful lot of respect for you, even with your continual tormenting of the kids at the local Walmart 😛

But I disagree with, and am really disappointed in your decision not to vote.

I understand your frustration, and like you I am sick of the partisan nonsense. But a much better option to not voting, is to vote and cast a blank ballot, or to write in something like “Neither”, or “Freedom”, or whatever.

Both parties know that a lot of people just won’t vote, and I believe actually want people to not show up at the polls. The lack of people voting is irrelevant to them, and they write it off as people being lazy.

As there is a lack of any real competition from a third party, the only real way to get our disgust with the status quo is to go to the polls, vote a blank ballot on those races/candidates who don’t represent your views, and participate in those non-partisan races for local positions.

This is going to be a rare point of disagreement between us, Maggie, because I do think politicians can change the course of history. I will grant that it is often like changing the course of the QE2 with canoe paddle. But there are moments when decisions have to be made that do have huge consequences like going to war. And I do think protest votes matter.

I will grant that it takes a politician of rare will and determination to change history. I think Thatcher was one of those (for good or ill; mostly good IMHO but others disagree). Reagan to extent. Clinton a little bit. These two quibbledicks not at all.

Incidentally, have you ever watched “Yes, Minster” and “Yes, Prime Minister”? Because they DEFINITELY adhere to your philosophy of an entrenchy bureaucracy controlling things. But they sometimes hint at my philosophy which is that change is possible.

Not at all! I’d be uncomfortable if I found myself never disagreeing with someone! And yes, I’ve seen enough episodes of Yes, Minister to know that it’s spot-on. I do think that it used to be possible for exceptional individuals to change things, until fascism fully took hold; however, IMHO on the federal level those days are gone.

I see your point. For me, I’ll admit it is a personal commitment. When I was a grad student, one of my fellow grads told me he had been at Tiananmen Square just before the crackdown came and had never voted in his life. I have not missed an election since.

You know, there’s more to voting than just choosing between the worthless candidates. In most states there will always be initiatives, proposed amendments to the state constitution, or some other type of referendum. You get a simple yes-or-no question about a proposed law or amendment, or if your lucky, you might even get a chance to repeal some stupid law. And best of all, the politicians and bureaucrats have no say it the matter!!!!
Of course, it does depend on the state you live in. Many states on allow the public to vote on a few specific types of issues, but others may have referenda for practically anything.
When voting on a referendum, you’re not giving any kind of assent to any politician.
You should at least consider it for the next election.

I was going to propose term limits for bureaucrats on here, but you beat me to it in your reply to Krulac. 🙂

I haven’t voted in nearly 20 years, and don’t plan to waste my time and money on it again; I expend my efforts on working out how to ignore and break whatever stupid, repressive law the Overlords inflict next. It’s very liberating to completely extract from one’s mind any vestige of a residual belief that “laws” have any basis in morality whatsoever, or that the police are anything other than a criminal gang to be avoided at all costs.

I’d agree with this. The national elections get all the attention, but if you don’t live in ‘swing’ state you’re vote is literally, mathematically worthless. If you do live in a swing state it’s still statistically meaningless. However, the more local the election, the more chance you have of effecting it. It’s still pretty small, but I do vote, mostly so I can vote on local measures.

In addition to giving you at least a slightly larger chance of effecting things, I think some of the worst government policies are enacted at the local levels. This is where zoning, building codes, and all manner of meddlesome policies are created.

If you want to know who’s going to be president, go to nytimes.com and see who they “endorse” for the office. That one usually ends up being president. They “endorsed” Bush in 2000 and 2004, and Obama in 2008, and lo and behold, both became president.

After I became eligible to vote, I quickly realized that no candidate came close to expressing my views. I nevertheless had bought the idea that one should vote. So I went to the polling booth but I discarded my ballot, since there was no “none of the above” for me to vote.

Nowadays, I simply do not consent to the legitimacy of this government. I therefore may not vote. To do so would be to violate my own integrity.

I generally agree with the sentiment, however, since they also throw in the “Questions”, I find that I need to vote. During the election in MA, we get o vote on legalizing marijuana and legalized suicide under certain medical conditions. Even if my vote counts for an insignificant percent, I still need to vote those into existence. I plan to protest by either leaving the elected official section blank or writing in some ridiculous fictional character like Yoda or John Gault.

Maggie, I would like to make an unusual argument for voting on Election Day. I certainly understand why you do not vote because from the perspective of whores, the Obama administration is just as bad—if not worse—as the Bush administration (son as well as father). But casting a ballot—even if it’s a blank one—entitles the citizen to perform one duty, where—although most people try to avoid it—one can make a difference.

What I am talking about is the privilege to serve on a jury.

Keeping that in mind, do you happen to know if any women in this country have been disenfranchised for being convicted of prostitution? Thanks!

This is the first presidential election where I am abstaining from voting for all the reasons Maggie listed. I would have voted on individual issues affecting the state or city but I am so disgruntled towards it all. Besides the fact that I am probably moving out of state soon so I feel even more removed from local issues.

You’d never survive in Ireland, Maggie. Here, the watchword is “vote early, vote often” — though I don’t imagine we’re unique in that. It was impressive though, watching the dead rise up and go to the poll 😉

Maggie, as far as I have seen you are closest to libertarians. Why wouldn’t you vote libertarian? The fact that it won’t have any effect creates a self-fulfilling prophecy; in some cases it’s better to do something that is not pragmatic, but true to your convictions.

My professor and friend once told me that sometimes, you don’t need to explain why you don’t agree with somebody or something. Sometimes, she continued, it is fine to just state that you disagree.

As always, your article is well written and made me think, and that excerpt was particularly interesting. I haven’t been voting in my native Germany for a long time, simply because I don’t live there most of the time, so I rather leave it to those who do live there to decide whom they wish to support.

You are perfectly right that by voting, one automatically condones the system, and it’s within everyone’s right to choose not to do so. But in the case of Germany, for example, with a greater variety of parties to choose from, one allows the more extreme parties, such as the Neo-Nazis, to enter parliaments, because they are usually pretty good at getting their followers to vote.

So I wouldn’t say, “You didn’t vote so you can’t complain.”, but I would say that by not voting, one doesn’t do one’s bit to prevent extremists to gain influence. There are parties one might not support on every issue, but that are the lesser evil.

In the American case, I believe there is plenty to say where President Obama’s shortcomings are concerned. I will forever be an outsider when it comes to US politics. But from my outsider’s perspective, I feel I would be darn sure to try and prevent the likes of Romney and Ryan (or worse – they do have worse guys) to take over, even if it’s true that Obama and Biden are one side of the same coin in many respects. For those matters where they aren’t, I feel it’s worth to go voting.

There are of course all sorts of consequentialist arguments for voting (and very few for not voting). These don’t apply to your analysis since you’re taking a moral purity approach to the question. It doesn’t matter for your analysis whether anyone sees you not voting, nor how it affects the outcome. I think this difference in general approach is the reason that so many get so weirded out by your position, and why they cannot get any traction to even understand it.

Even on the basis of moral purity, though, I object.

If a rapist asks his victim, on the pretense that she’s consenting, which of two acts she’d rather start with, do you think it’s more morally pure to remain silent rather than say ‘neither’? – even if for whatever reason she could be confident that such an answer would not make matters worse for her?

~

Which would be a more stunning rejection of the electoral system?

Alice wins with 51% of the vote. Bob loses with 49% of the vote. Voter turnout was 50%

or

Mickey Mouse wins with 50% of the vote. Alice and Bob lose with 25.5% and 24.5% of the vote. Voter turnout was 100%.

I do not ask because I’m trying to say you could do this or to say it could happen. I’m extending it to the extreme case as a guide to what the small case means.

If voting didn’t matter, they wouldn’t be trying to stop people from doing it.

I used to get mad at the “I don’t vote” crowd, but you know what? They don’t matter. I mean, I don’t matter much, but they don’t matter AT ALL. I never have to live under anything they supported, because they don’t support anything. For all intents and purposes, they do not exist, by their own choice.

Whorish Media

Maggie on Twitter

Boring but necessary legal stuff

All original content on this website (i.e. all of my columns, pages and anything else which I write myself) is protected under international copyright law as of the time it is posted; though you may link to it as you please or quote passages (as long as you attribute the quote to me), please do not reproduce whole columns without my express written permission. In other words, you have to say "pretty please with sugar on top" first, and then wait for me to say "okey-dokey".